Berkeley marina case tests Scouts' anti-gay stance

Sacramento Bee ^ | March 27, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[laureldrive]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will step into a case that's being viewed as the next major legal test of the Boy Scouts' stand against homosexuality. By a bare majority, the justices said they'll review lower court decisions that let Berkeley rescind half-century-old free-berthing privileges at the city marina to the local Sea Scouts chapter. The city acted in 1997, after the chapter refused to renounce the anti-gay position of its parent Boy Scouts.

[lormand]

Kalifornia Supreme Court?

BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAA!

What a joke

[Mark]

Well, it is Berkely. It's not like it's part of the U.S.A.

[Congressman Billybob]

There are two essential points that appear (slightly) in this article that are essential to the case. First, the US Supreme Court decision in favor of the Boy Scouts of America held that the Scouts have a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT to determine the nature of their adult leaders. So, the marina authority is demanding that the Scouts give up their constitutional rights.

Second, and this may be the Cailfornia Supreme Court's easy way to end the case, the Sea Scouts have no policy in the area of homosexual adult leaders. The marina is demanding that the Sea Scouts denounce the policy of the Boy Scouts. I'm willing to bet the Cal. SC will take the cheap way out, and use this as the basis of its ruling in favor of the Sea Scouts.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, not yet up on UPI, and FR, "The A-MAA-zing War Wizard"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[annyokie]

Man, those homosexuals certainly are intolerant of straight folk. Why don't they just embrace our diversity and respect the difference?

[JohnnyZ]

bump for rumored Supreme Court nominee Janice Brown.

[lilylangtree]

San Francisco--Queer Capital of the World

Good grief!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[IronJack]

If the Scouts have been singled out for this privilege, then it is within the rights of the City to rescind the privilege. But if other organizations are granted free berthing, then the Scouts have an equal claim. Best of all would be if some generous donor agreed to pay the $500 a month rent, or give the Scouts his own berth to use, free of charge.

[churchillbuff]

VIRTUALLY everyone else pays

That's the point, isn't it - - - other nonprofits aren't charged this fee; the sea scouts ARE charged the fee - simply because of their ties to the Boy Scouts, ie their freedom of association. They're being discriminated against because of their associations - and that's not constitutionally allowed.

[churchillbuff]

Thus far, two courts have not seen it that way

Well that settles it, doesn't it?

[freekitty]

I agree with you.

[JCG]

To qualify for a fee waiver, an organization must be non-profit and must make an anti-discrimination pledge. Satisfy those fair and lawful requirements and you'll get a waiver. Anyone that does not satisfy those requirement does not get a waiver. This is real simple stuff.

If it were simple the California Supremes wouldn't have to intervene.

The issue is whether Berkely can discriminate against a right the US Supremes have said the BSA possesses.

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8Mb File Here (Requires RealPlayer)

Who is Steve Emerson?

[halfdome]

I don't think the marina is demanding the Scouts give up their constitutional rights. They're just saying they won't give charity to an agency which discriminates. The scouts are perfectly welcome to leave their boat in the marina, they just have to pay to do so. It seems that's what they're doing currently.